Time to envision and act for a global energy transition in an era of upheaval and uncertainty

Abstract

Uncertainty is the new normal—This is the key message the UNDP Human Development Report sent to the world (UNDP, 2022). The global landscape, shaped by the pandemic-induced recession, escalating regional conflicts such as the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel–Hamas conflict, the worldwide energy crisis, and the techno-geopolitical tensions linked to the US-China rivalry, casts staggering uncertainty on where the world is heading. Prior to the pandemic, optimism prevailed over the prospect of the global energy transition. Statistics in 2019 showed that new power capacity additions were dominated by renewable energy, accounting for 72% of additions worldwide (IRENA, 2020). Nevertheless, in the face of multiple and intersecting crises, the prospects for the energy transition are increasingly bleak. According to the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy,¹ global energy-related emissions increased by 2% in 2023, reaching a record high. IRENA’s outlook on world energy transitions describes the progress of energy transition as “far from being on track” (IRENA, 2022).

The tendency of framing energy transition within a backdrop of global stability

Energy transitions can be analyzed through both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Correspondingly, socio-technical transition theories and quantitative systems modeling represent distinct yet complementary analytical frameworks for understanding energy transitions (Geels et al., 2016; Turnheim et al., 2015). Socio-technical theories provide rich, contextual insights into the dynamics of change within societal structures, while quantitative models offer future-oriented, data-driven projections for transition pathways (Hof et al., 2020). Despite their difference in methodologies, both approaches share a common tendency to frame the transformation within a context of assuredness and stability, often underestimating the potential for disruption and uncertainty in the transition process.

In mainstream conceptual frameworks of socio-technical transitions such as the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) and the technological innovation system (TIS), the analytical focus is primarily placed on the meso-level (Geels et al., 2016), while long-term macroeconomic, geopolitical, and cultural developments—such as wars, financial crises, and pandemics—are conceptualized as broader factors that remain exogenous to the multiple systems of transition (Geels et al., 2023). The widely adopted analytical framework for energy transitions, the MLP for instance, constructs three analytical levels for the dynamics of sociotechnical transitions, namely of niches (micro-level), sociotechnical regimes (meso-level), and sociotechnical landscape (macro-level) (Geels, 2002, 2005). Niches are the locus for radical innovations, and sociotechnical regimes refer to the locus of established practices and associated rules that stabilize existing systems. At the macro level, the sociotechnical landscape is conceptualized as the broader context for sociotechnical transitions, an exogenous, stable backdrop (Geels, 2005, 2011; Geels et al., 2023; Genus and Coles, 2008). As delineated by Geels (2011):

The landscape level, which has similarities to the concept of longue durée proposed by the historian Braudel, highlights not only the technical and material backdrop that sustains society, but also includes demographical trends, political ideologies, societal values, and macro-economic patterns. This varied set of factors can be combined within a single ‘landscape’ category, because they form an external context that actors at niche and regime levels cannot influence in the short run. The landscape level usually changes slowly. (p. 28)

Although more differentiated views on the landscape of transition were developed in later theoretical conceptualizations (see for instance: Van Driel and Schot, 2005), the perception of a stable technical, material, socio-economic, political, and cultural backdrop has exerted a profound impact on the understanding and interpretation of energy transitions, encompassing not only the conceptual frameworks but also the methodologies employed in transition modeling.

Transition models facilitate systematic, forward-looking evaluations of transition pathways. Various approaches have been used in transition models, including techno-economic, integrated assessment, system dynamic, network, agent-based, and complex systems (Holtz, 2011; Turnheim et al., 2015). By adjusting parameters such as emissions, technological factors, user preferences, and policy instruments across different scenarios, these models help explore a range of potential trajectories of energy transitions and their associated implications (Hof et al., 2020).

Although transition models have been applied by modeling researchers in the projections of transition pathways in different localities (Borasio and Moret, 2022; Foxon et al., 2010; Nieto et al., 2020; Su and Tan, 2023), there has been a tendency to portray transitions as following a rather smooth trajectory over time while underestimate the weight of near-term shocks and their long-term ramifications (Hof et al., 2020; Turnheim et al., 2015). For instance, the U.K. has committed to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. However, the country’s net-zero projections often overlook the uncertainties associated with broader trends. A significant example is the assumption that no long-term behavioral changes will arise from the COVID-19 pandemic—a highly unlikely scenario (BEIS, 2021). In the modeling of transition pathways, a stable global context has, to some extent, become the “default setting.” Under the modeling design of a stable global context, with fixed parameters for system boundaries and structures, transition models run a substantial risk of offering idealistic yet ultimately impractical visions of a utopian future. The capacity of quantitative models to address complexity and uncertainty is significantly constrained by these assumptions (Bolwig et al., 2019).

The world has entered a new normality of instability and uncertainty

Although the World Health Organization has declared the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, uncertainty still lingers across the globe. The pandemic has engendered structural changes in the supply-side momentum of energy transitions. During the past 3 years, the energy transition process in many developing or underdeveloped countries has faced a standstill because more funding has been channeled to public health sectors to tackle the impact of the pandemic. Emerging evidence indicates that global policies are leaning towards short-term, quick-impact solutions, such as sustaining the existing energy industry, as a means to boost economies in the post-pandemic era (Alam et al., 2023; Hoang et al., 2021; Zakeri et al., 2022). A recent study, for instance, observes that the energy transition in Indonesia has been significantly burdened by the COVID-19 pandemic. With economic recovery taking precedence over environmental concerns, the government has intensified its support for the coal industry (Rachmawati, 2024). On the demand side, the pandemic has reconfigured people’s lifestyles, behavioral patterns, and business models (D’Orazio, 2023; Jiang et al., 2021; Kikstra et al., 2021), which effect might be persisting or even permanent than temporal (Korneeva et al., 2024; Zakeri et al., 2022). Recent studies have highlighted the growing trend of remote work during and after the pandemic. For example, a study in Ireland reveals a strong and enduring preference for remote work, which could significantly reshape long-term residential and commuting patterns (Stefaniec et al., 2022). Additionally, another study finds that public transport users are more inclined to work from home, suggesting a potential long-term decline in demand for sustainable public transportation in urban areas (Richards et al., 2024). These research findings indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic might be more than a near-term shock and might reshape the long-term trends of the energy transition (Keramidas et al., 2021).

Geopolitically, the global landscape is undergoing a consequential transition of order, characterized by intricate regional conflicts and the intense rivalry between dominant powers (Roland, 2021). Both the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel–Hamas conflict have acted as black swan events to the global community (FT, 2022). In particular, the Russia-Ukraine crisis has profoundly reshaped the global energy landscape, impacting both consumption and production patterns. When traditional energy sources are deprived of their stabilizing capabilities as a result of the destructive nature of these conflicting dynamics, the vulnerability of energy systems becomes increasingly apparent. Sanctions on Russian oil have pushed the country to reroute its oil to the East, particularly to countries such as India and China (Reuters, 2023). In many European countries, due to the energy crisis sparked by the Russia-Ukraine war, plans to retire more coal-fired power stations have been halted. Moreover, in its efforts to reduce dependence on Russian energy, Europe is increasingly looking to Africa for new fossil fuel supplies. This shift could lead to a surge in investments in fossil fuel infrastructure across African exporting countries, potentially undermining the progress of these countries towards low-carbon energy transitions (Auth and Moss, 2022).

On the other hand, the intensifying strategic rivalry between the U.S. and China is not just a backdrop but a significant factor influencing the global energy transition (Leung et al., 2022). As the world’s largest carbon emitters and energy consumers, cooperation between these two nations is critical for advancing the global energy transition. However, this cooperation is increasingly seen as challenging. In June 2021, the U.S. imposed a ban on imports of silica-based products from a Chinese company. The sanctions were imposed even if they might affect the progress of expanding domestic solar use in the U.S. (Kaplan et al., 2021). Moreover, the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has exacerbated competition by challenging China’s dominance in clean energy supply chains, potentially diverting investments and technological advancements away from China. This competitive dynamic is further complicated by trade frictions, as the U.S. imposes restrictions that could hinder Chinese companies’ access to American markets, particularly in sectors like electric vehicles and solar energy (Kim, 2024). The long-term outlook suggests that rather than fostering cooperation, the U.S.-China rivalry is likely to lead to more protectionist measures and intensified competition in the clean energy space .

Overall, the world has embarked upon a profoundly turbulent phase across various dimensions. Diverse sources of conflicts and instabilities conspire to disrupt the global energy system and cast significant uncertainties over the prospects of global energy transitions. These sources include, but are not limited to, unforeseen major public health and social incidents, regional conflicts and unrest, and geopolitical dynamics revolving around the technological race and decoupling between major powers. It is increasingly clear that human society often struggles to respond effectively to chaos arising either from within societies or stemming from natural disasters, thereby heightening overall uncertainty. These intertwined factors might restructure the patterns of energy production, distribution, and consumption, and shape the current state of geopolitical affairs, underpinning the complex and multidimensional nature of energy transitions (Hoang et al., 2021; Zakeri et al., 2022). Moreover, confronted with intersecting crises, numerous countries may reorient their national priorities from clean energy transition to energy security and economic recovery, potentially resulting in short-term setbacks in the global energy transition (Leung et al., 2022). The need for the political and academic communities to envision and take action toward a global energy transition within the context of turbulent global geopolitics is becoming increasingly urgent.

Envision an energy transition in uncertainty

For transition theories, this comment calls for deeper thinking into what is needed to navigate the new uncertainty. Traditionally, energy transition theories might have assumed a relatively stable, predictable environment. However, in the light of recent events, it is evident that we live in an era of unprecedented disruptions and changes. This chaotic and unstable context is no longer an outlier or an exception but the new norm. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a reconceptualization of energy transition, by seriously engaging with the upcoming structural changes of human society and assigning more weight to crises and risks in the theoretical underpinnings of energy transitions. Recent increasing scholarly attention to scenario frameworks and anticipatory approaches in environmental literature represents an emerging trend toward this avenue (Muiderman et al., 2022, 2023; Riahi et al., 2017).

For transition pathway simulation, when the world now is facing layered and interacting uncertainties, the models that guide our understanding and projection of energy transitions need to factor in these uncertainties, or they risk becoming irrelevant or even misleading for transition policymaking (Dafnomilis et al., 2020; Malliet et al., 2020). This means that crises and risks should not be treated as transient events that momentarily disturb the system before it returns to equilibrium. Instead, they should be seen as integral parts of the system that have significant impacts on the (nonlinear) trajectory of energy transitions. Only by so doing can transition modeling offer more feasible scenarios, potentially leading to more effective strategies and policies to navigate these transitions in the future.

Act for an energy transition in uncertainty

In the practical realm, there is an urgent need to act for a global energy transition amid turbulence. The shocks induced by the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical tensions, and extreme weather events have laid bare the vulnerability of global energy systems. Therefore, it becomes ever more imperative to build up the resilience of the energy system to external shocks during an energy transition (Ren et al., 2023). Drawing from recent developments in both academic and practical arenas of energy transitions (D’Orazio, 2023; Mitra and Shaw, 2023), this comment proposes a focus on three pivotal keywords: diversification, decentralization, and contextualization.

Firstly, the diversification of the energy mix. The energy crisis stemming from the Russia-Ukraine has highlighted the importance of ensuring energy security throughout energy transitions (Alam et al., 2023). Europe’s shift from coal to gas has effectively cut emissions in the energy sector, but it has also made the energy system more vulnerable. The lessons learned from Europe’s energy crisis underscore the dangers associated with exclusively depending on a singular transitional energy source, especially when faced with unforeseen political, economic, and social shocks. It highlights the importance of a comprehensive and resilient energy strategy that embraces a variety of sources to enhance stability and adaptability in the face of dynamic challenges. As the Russia-Ukraine war continues, the EU has taken concrete actions to diversify its sources of energy supply (Creutzig, 2022; Kuzemko et al., 2022; McWilliams et al., 2022; Selei et al., 2022). Nevertheless, this is a valuable and important lesson that should be learned not only by Europe but also by other countries around the world striving for a low-carbon energy transition.

Secondly, the decentralization of energy systems. One of the significant events in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is the sabotage of the Nord Stream two pipeline, which has brought to the forefront the fragility of energy infrastructure, particularly in the midst of unforeseen geopolitical conflicts. The resilience benefit of decentralized energy systems is increasingly recognized in the literature (Liu et al., 2020; Rickerson et al., 2024). Distributed energy systems such as community-based solar initiatives can significantly reduce vulnerability to central points of failure. In Kenya, for instance, during the pandemic, solar PV panels played an essential role in powering health centers with dependable, renewable energy, ensuring the safe storage of vaccines (Chen et al., 2019). Similarly, throughout the recent Israel-Hamas conflict, the utilization of solar power systems in Gaza significantly heightened the resilience of its energy infrastructure during wartime, powering essential facilities such as hospitals and refugee camps. Dispersing energy generation, storage, and distribution across a network of localized systems can effectively mitigate risks associated with disruptions during a transition.

Thirdly, the contextualization of energy transition solutions. The context-dependency of energy transition has been a core inquiry in the emerging body of literature in transition studies on the spatiality and geography of energy transitions (Bridge, 2018; Bridge et al., 2013; Calvert, 2016; Coenen et al., 2012; Coenen and Truffer, 2012). In practice, the nuanced approach to contextualizing energy transition solutions involves the development of context-sensitive and place-based strategies tailored to the unique dynamics of each region (Ghosh et al., 2021). The proliferation of community-based transition experiments signals the trend toward this end. These initiatives can utilize the indigenous knowledge of local communities, which is inherently more attuned to the intricacies of regional risks and hazards (Moallemi et al., 2023; Schreuder and Horlings, 2022). By leveraging local insights, transition initiatives can proactively address the specific challenges and opportunities unique to each locality, making them better equipped to navigate the complexities and uncertainties of the post-pandemic world (Coger et al., 2022; D’Orazio, 2023).

Ping Huang The Institute for International Affairs, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China; School of Public Policy, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ping Huang

1. Author biography

Ping Huang is a Research Associate Professor at The Institute for International Affairs, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen. He is also a Visiting Fellow at the Urban Institute at The University of Sheffield, UK, and Honorary Professor at the Department of Geography at The University of Hong Kong. He serves as the Associate Editor for Transactions in Energy and Sustainability and Asian Review of Political Economy. He also serves as the Executive Director of Executive Development Program of Public Administration at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen. His main research areas are sustainability transitions, geography of innovation, urban governance, and innovation policy.

References

Alam

Aktar

Idris

NDM

, et al. (2023) World energy economics and geopolitics amid COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 policy direction. World Development Sustainability 2: 100048.

Auth

Moss

(2022) How Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will impact Africa’s energy transition. In: Council on Foreign Relations Blog, April, 22.

BEIS (2021) Net zero strategy: Build back greener: Technical report. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1033990/net-zero-strategy-beis.pdf (accessed 19 August 2024).

Bolwig

Bazbauers

Klitkou

, et al. (2019) Review of modelling energy transitions pathways with application to energy system flexibility. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 101: 440–452.

Borasio

Moret

(2022) Deep decarbonisation of regional energy systems: A novel modelling approach and its application to the Italian energy transition. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 153: 111730.

Bridge

(2018) The map is not the territory: A sympathetic critique of energy research’s spatial turn. Energy Research & Social Science 36: 11–20.

Bridge

Bouzarovski

Bradshaw

, et al. (2013) Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy 53: 331–340.

Calvert

(2016) From ‘energy geography’ to ‘energy geographies’ perspectives on a fertile academic borderland. Progress in Human Geography 40(1): 105–125.

Chen

Mwachandi

Sanyal

(2019) In Kenya’s rural health clinics, business performance and renewables go hand-in-hand. In: WRI Blog, March, 19.

10.

Coenen

Truffer

(2012) Places and spaces of sustainability transitions: Geographical contributions to an emerging research and policy field. European Planning Studies 20(3): 367–374.

11.

Coenen

Benneworth

Truffer

(2012) Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy 41(6): 968–979.

12.

Coger

Dinshaw

Tye

, et al. (2022) Locally led adaptation: From principles to practice. Working Paper, World Resources Institute. DOI: 10.46830/wriwp.21.00142.

13.

Creutzig

(2022) Fuel crisis: Slash demand in three sectors to protect economies and climate. Nature 606(7914): 460–462.

14.

D’Orazio

(2023) Charting the complexities of a post-COVID energy transition: Emerging research frontiers for a sustainable future. Energy Research & Social Science 108: 103365.

15.

Dafnomilis

den Elzen

van Soest

, et al. (2020) Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global emission projections. The Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Agency.

16.

Foxon

Hammond

Pearson

(2010) Developing transition pathways for a low carbon electricity system in the UK. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77(8): 1203–1213.

17.

FT (2022) Ukraine war reveals ‘black swan’ danger. Financial Times.

18.

Geels

(2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31(8–9): 1257–1274.

19.

Geels

(2005) The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical Systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 17(4): 445–476.

20.

Geels

(2011) The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1(1): 24–40.

21.

Geels

Berkhout

Van Vuuren

(2016) Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions. Nature Climate Change 6(6): 576–583.

22.

Geels

Kern

Clark

(2023) System transitions research and sustainable development: Challenges, progress, and prospects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120(47): e2206230120.

23.

Genus

Coles

A-M

(2008) Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions. Research Policy 37(9): 1436–1445.

24.

Ghosh

Ramos-Mejía

Machado

, et al. (2021) Decolonising transitions in the Global South: Towards more epistemic diversity in transitions research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 41: 106–109.

25.

Hoang

Nižetić

Olcer

, et al. (2021) Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on the global energy system and the shift progress to renewable energy: Opportunities, challenges, and policy implications. Energy Policy 154: 112322.

26.

Hof

van Vuuren

Berkhout

, et al. (2020) Understanding transition pathways by bridging modelling, transition and practice-based studies: Editorial introduction to the special issue. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 151: 119665.

27.

Holtz

(2011) Modelling transitions: An appraisal of experiences and suggestions for research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1(2): 167–186.

28.

IRENA (2020) Renewable capacity statistics 2020. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency.

29.

IRENA (2022) World energy transitions outlook 2022: 1.5°C pathway. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi.

30.

Jiang

Van Fan

Klemeš

(2021) Impacts of COVID-19 on energy demand and consumption: Challenges, lessons and emerging opportunities. Applied Energy 285: 116441.

31.

Kaplan

Buckley

Plumer

(2021) U.S. bans imports of some Chinese solar materials tied to forced labor. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/business/economy/china-forced-labor-solar.html (accessed 19 August 2024).

32.

Keramidas

Fosse

Diaz-Vazquez

, et al. (2021) Global energy and climate outlook 2020: A new normal beyond covid-19. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

33.

Kikstra

Vinca

Lovat

, et al. (2021) Climate mitigation scenarios with persistent COVID-19-related energy demand changes. Nature Energy 6(12): 1114–1123.

34.

Kim

(2024) US protectionism and competition with China. The Washington Quarterly 47(2): 71–86.

35.

Korneeva

Skornichenko

Oruch

, et al. (2024) Shifting consumer perspectives on energy efficiency and sustainable development . In: E3S Web of Conferences 531: 02025.

36.

Kuzemko

Blondeel

Dupont

, et al. (2022) Russia’s war on Ukraine, European energy policy responses & implications for sustainable transformations. Energy Research & Social Science 93: 102842.

37.

Leung

Fan

(2022) US and Chinese approaches to clean energy transition. Houston, USA: George H.W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations.

38.

Liu

Jiang

Ollis

, et al. (2020) Resilient distribution system leveraging distributed generation and microgrids: A review. IET Energy Systems Integration 2(4): 289–304.

39.

Malliet

Reynès

Landa

, et al. (2020) Assessing short-term and long-term economic and environmental effects of the COVID-19 crisis in France. Environmental and Resource Economics 76(4): 867–883.

40.

McWilliams

Sgaravatti

Tagliapietra

, et al. (2022) Preparing for the first winter without Russian gas. Bruegel Blog, 28.

41.

Mitra

Shaw

(2023) Systemic risk from a disaster management perspective: A review of current research. Environmental Science & Policy 140: 122–133.

42.

Moallemi

Zare

Hebinck

, et al. (2023) Knowledge co-production for decision-making in human-natural systems under uncertainty. Global Environmental Change 82: 102727.

43.

Muiderman

Vervoort

Gupta

, et al. (2023) Is anticipatory governance opening up or closing down future possibilities? Findings from diverse contexts in the Global South. Global Environmental Change 81: 102694.

44.

Muiderman

Zurek

Vervoort

, et al. (2022) The anticipatory governance of sustainability transformations: Hybrid approaches and dominant perspectives. Global Environmental Change 73: 102452.

45.

Nieto

Carpintero

Lobejón

, et al. (2020) An ecological macroeconomics model: The energy transition in the EU. Energy Policy 145: 111726.

46.

Rachmawati

(2024) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Indonesia’s energy transition. SINERGI: Journal of Strategic Studies & International Affairs 4: 21–44.

47.

Ren

, et al. (2023) Impact of climate policy uncertainty on traditional energy and green markets: Evidence from time-varying granger tests. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 173: 113058.

48.

Reuters (2023) Russia sends more Arctic oil to China, India after sanctions. Reuters.

49.

Riahi

Van Vuuren

Kriegler

, et al. (2017) The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Global Environmental Change 42: 153–168.

50.

Richards

Convery

O’Mahony

, et al. (2024) Pre and post Covid preferences for working from home. Travel Behaviour and Society 34: 100679.

51.

Rickerson

Gillis

Bulkeley

(2024) The value of resilience for distributed energy resources: An overview of current analytical practices. Technical report prepared for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), USA.

52.

Roland

(2021) China’s rise and its implications for international relations and Northeast Asia. Asia and the Global Economy 1(2): 100016.

53.

Schreuder

Horlings

(2022) Transforming places together: Transformative community strategies responding to climate change and sustainability challenges. Climate Action 1(1): 24.

54.

Selei

Kotek

Takácsné Tóth

(2022) Russia’s gas weapon and Europe’s best response. SSRN 4172012.

55.

Stefaniec

Brazil

Whitney

, et al. (2022) Desire to work from home: Results of an Irish study. Journal of Transport Geography 104: 103416.

56.

Tan

(2023) Regional energy transition path and the role of government support and resource endowment in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 174: 113150.

57.

Turnheim

Berkhout

Geels

, et al. (2015) Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Global Environmental Change 35: 239–253.

58.

UNDP (2022) Human development report 2021–22: Uncertain times, unsettled lives: Shaping our future in a transforming world. United Nations Development Programme.

59.

Van Driel

Schot

(2005) Radical innovation as a multilevel process: Introducing floating grain elevators in the port of Rotterdam. Technology and Culture 46(1): 51–76.

60.

Zakeri

Paulavets

Barreto-Gomez

, et al. (2022) Pandemic, war, and global energy transitions. Energies 15(17): 6114.